Re FISA: Anyone know the exact date to which the retroactive immunity extends?

hisownpetard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 03:20 PM
Original message

Re FISA: Anyone know the exact date to which the retroactive immunity extends?

If it only goes back to 9/11/01, and it can be proven that BushCo. actually started doing their illegal snooping
seven months prior to that - couldn't they be held legally liable for acts committed during those seven months?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

elehhhhna

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 03:37 PM
Response to Original message

1. text here, looks like it does spcify 9/11/01...

It just figures that the idiots in Bush's DOJ or whoever wrote it may have goofed up. I hope it means they can still be sued for activity prior to 9/11.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:ThxMeXePJ50J:www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd%3Fbill%3Dh110-3773%26tab%3Dsummary+September+11,+2001+%22To+amend+the+Foreign+Intelligence+Surveillance+Act+of+1978+to+establish+a+procedure+for+authorizing+certain+acquisitions+of+foreign+intelligence,+and+for+other+purposes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hisownpetard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. Thanks for the link. Far as I can tell, it only goes back to 9/11/01. Is this the loophole

through which the evil-doers could still be held accountable?

Any legal eagles out there who could interpret this? I haven't seen/heard this discussed before.

Be still, my heart...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Egnever

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. The fisa bill does not stop people from being proecuted over this

in fact it calls for an investigation into what happened that IMHO will lead to prosecutions. Of course I am not a lawyer so YMMV.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hisownpetard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. YMMV?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hisownpetard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #3

6. If it extends retroactive immunity to the telecoms, that doesn't preclude the possibility of them

being sued?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AZ Criminal JD

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #3

10. There will be no prosecutions

First, the statute of limitations has already run on claims before 9/11/2001. Second, in order to have a criminal prosecution the prosecutor must show intent and they can't do that if the government asked them to do the taps.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hisownpetard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #10

13. If the gov't asked them to do the wiretaps and both parties knew it was illegal, how does that

obviate intent?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AZ Criminal JD

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #13

14. Good luck to showing someone knew it was illegal

When the government asks you to do it. If you think the government is going to prosecute when they asked them to do it you just don't know how U.S. Attorney's offices work.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MrCoffee

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. "including the program commonly known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program"

I suppose it depends on what is included in this definition.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hisownpetard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. Hey, how ya be, Mr. C?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MrCoffee

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. Same as it ever was...

You've been gone for a bit, haven't you? Or have I been completely oblivious and just missed seeing you?

Either way...:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hisownpetard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #9

11. I thought *you* were gone! Good to see you're still perkin' along.

:headbang:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

chill_wind

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 04:08 PM
Response to Original message

8. Statute of limitations on visa violations is what-- 5 years?

That's what Dean seems to think:

http://writ.findlaw.com/dean/20071019.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hisownpetard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #8

12. Excellent link. Thank you for that!

:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jasonberlin

(89 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-10-08 08:27 PM
Response to Original message

15. This'll go to the courts...

The ACLU and others will test this in the courts, and I think we might be waiting another 1-2 years to hear what the Supremes have to say about it! Hopefully Scalia and Thomas choke on some Twizzlers before that happens.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon May 06th 2024, 06:17 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.